You are a pathetic Obama hater bard. And neither you, nor any of the righties have told us what "winning" looks like. After all, the neo-cons were too uninformed to realize there were 2 sects in Iraq that didn't get along. But maybe you can put your balls where your mouth is, and sign up for the marines. Yee hah! We'll let you fix it.

If you call murder with remote drones leadership, it is not. ... We lost a lot of Americas best over there, for what? Only to let the Shiite minority hook up with Irans shiite majority? What kind of leadership is this? Bush and Obama are both to blame, but it's obama's fault if this fails now.

Yes, it is. And I doubt it's an IF, but a certainty. But the policy of using more drones and spooks with fewer hordes of boots on the ground makes a lot of sense to me ... largely because many of our greatest military minds have been strongly pushing for that paradigm for a decade in this type of decentralized, asymmetrical, "nationless", widely scattered warfare. Our drone capability has advanced very significantly since this war began, so O has that technological advantage over W, and of course one can't win it all from the air as Rumsfeld would have liked.

But "Murder"? I don't see that. Terrorists in general and the big-name terrorists in particular meet all the accepted criteria of enemy combatants, and are thus fair game for forceful removal from the battlefield. The were all offered many chances for surrender, for civilian or military trial, and/orfor peaceful retirement for people like Ghadaffi if they would vacate, but they all chose and vowed to keep fighting, to remain in battle. That, their continued threat to the free world, and several other specific criteria win every one of the many legal debates I've watched on the issue.

And, ya know, at some point with many of these individuals, I've got to admit I don't give a damn. A terrorist -- they're not "men"; that elevates them to the status of human -- who targets civilians by the hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands, often his own people, needs to be dealt with in terms he and his ilk understand. Trials and executions make them martyrs -- heroes -- whereas Ghadaffi's demise gets a point across and denies him the exaltation he might have garnered from some twisted corners of the world.

Would any of you prefer that Bin Laden had gone to his 72 virgins as a glorious martyr for all of radical Islam rather than as a cowardly POS with his head blown apart?

From here forward, which is a better way to fight asymmetrical war against terrorism ... with thousands of lives and tens of thousands of limbs or with drones and spooks? Candidate Clinton said three years ago that when she's elected we will take this war to every country on earth that contains terrorists (protecting us IS, after all, a U.S. president's sworn prime directive). The only way to do that is with force multiplication such as that provided by technology, special forces, air power, etc.; we sure as hell can't "go to war" in the classic sense with the hundred or so nations where active radical Islam terrorists live and operate.

These guys though Bush was as weak as Bill Clinton because the biased media said W was an idiot. Result: we got 9/ll, and Al Qaeda got their butt reamed. These guys thought Obama was weak because he grovels to Islam and has turned his back on Israel and the U.K., and we got derision from both radical Islam and most of the world's free and tyrannical leaders alike and barely averted -- thanks to the worldwide alert and tactics that emerged during W's administration and were continued and/or expanded once Obama realized how vital they were.

I say bring the drones on, with a few checks and balances. The primary reason it's taken this long to bring them up to speed and into the forefront has been turf wars in the Pentagon; a bunch of men who once wore flight suits insist that there must be a man in the cockpit because it's all they know. Hell, if there weren't age limits on those dudes, some would be demanding horses and cannons.

Why throw lives and limbs into the fray unless only flesh and blood can achieve a specific mission, and why throw a battalion at a problem solvable with a few spooks? The spooks we sneaked into Mexico to save that west coast football game from WMD (if you haven't heard about that, it's because YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO; THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF COVERT OPERATIONS!), the countless spook intrusions into Laos during Viet Nam, and the thousands of spook operations in these present wars have done so much more per capita at risk with far less enmity than open invasion can do.

If we can keep blasting these POS into red vapor clouds without a millisecond's warning and no martyrdom, some of them will think twice about attacking U.S. citizens and many more will be unABLE to attack U.S. citizens. A drone is just a very expensive bullet, after all, and risks far fewer civilian and U.S. soldiers' lives than an invasion.

Obama's plan is working perfectly. Libya declares sharia law today, egypt is close behind. Syria is out of control and probably will attack Israel when Assad is backed up against the wall. Christian Churches continue to burn.

Ahhh, Obama's arab spring in full bloom. Can't wait to see his next plan of attack....Shall we bomb Africa or Korea?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum